Loading ITAT cases…
441 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal held that the documents relied upon for initiating action under Section 153C were unsigned, failing to satisfy the condition that the document must belong to the assessee. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was not validly assumed.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, the possibility of communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor, and arguing counsel could not be ruled out. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted three effective opportunities to plead and prove its case at its own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal explicitly left undecided the merits of the disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an ex-parte order is passed due to potential communication breakdowns, restoring the appeal for a fresh hearing in the interest of justice is warranted, subject to the assessee bearing the responsibility for presenting its case.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer first assessed the assessee on a 'protective' basis and then recommended a 'substantive' assessment. Following the precedent in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961), the Tribunal held that this dual approach of assessment is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer first assessed the assessee on a 'protective' basis and then recommended a 'substantive' assessment. Following the precedent in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961), the Tribunal held that this dual approach of assessment is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal found no merit in the vehement stands of either party. While the Revenue argued that the assessee was a shell entity routing accommodation entries, the assessee failed to plead and prove the genuineness of the impugned transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that once it is prima facie established that the assessee is engaged in the accommodation entry business, only a profit element of 3% in the given facts is deemed just and proper. This profit element is to be assessed on the impugned alleged accommodation entry amount of Rs. 31,36,000/-. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the assessee at this rate, with a rider that this shall not be treated as a precedent. No other ground or argument was pressed.
The CIT(A) correctly observed that the purchase of immovable property was made through banking channels with proper documentation. Regarding the GP addition, the CIT(A) found that the turnover was already disclosed and the profit on the sale of agricultural land was wrongly included by the AO as part of business turnover.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. However, since the assessee was engaged in accommodation entry business, a profit element of 3% was deemed just and proper for the impugned transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3133 days in filing the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal reasoned that in the larger interest of justice and in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the delay should be condoned. The Tribunal directed the learned CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the assessee's appeal on merits, taking into account the additional evidence filed by the assessee and complying with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which requires framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication. All other remaining issues between the parties were kept open. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without considering their reply and without providing independent findings. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The rejection of applications was therefore considered unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire reopening process.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The AO's assessment, based on Supreme Court decisions affirming interest under Section 28 as part of enhanced compensation, was considered valid, even if debatable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. It also held that the restriction of the leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) was impermissible during the Section 143(1) processing, as it did not fall under the categories of arithmetical errors or apparent incorrect claims.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under section 148 on or after 01.04.2021 for reopening assessment for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. This is due to the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) not being applicable for AY 2015-16. Similar views were expressed by the Supreme Court and High Courts in various cases.
The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 45(2) and charged capital gains on the conversion of land to stock in trade, adding it to the total income. The CIT(A) observed that the AO incorrectly calculated business profits by not using the fair market value as the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the AO's method was flawed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that while the CIT(E) had given the assessee opportunities, for the sake of complete justice, one more opportunity should be granted to file the necessary information for registration. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed both grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,70,00,000/- under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had remanded the matter to the AO for a report based on evidence submitted by the assessee. The AO failed to submit a remand report even after reminders. The Tribunal accepted the CIT(A)'s finding that the amounts in dispute were repayments of loans lent by the assessee in earlier years, and the cash returned was not of the current year. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties returning the advances. With respect to the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not earned any exempt income and had claimed only Rs. 82,068/- as expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A could not exceed the actual expenditure incurred and claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s findings to be proper and just.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits. Affidavits alone were insufficient, and no documentary evidence was produced to support the claims of gifts or payments from debtors and stock sales.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had invalidly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C. The satisfaction note was deemed defective as it did not clearly link the seized material to the assessee or specific assessment years, and a consolidated satisfaction note was used for multiple years, which was found to be contrary to judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and DRP erred in treating Indian accommodations as a Permanent Establishment (PE) of Booking.com. The company's online reservation platform, hosted outside India, and its principal-to-principal transactions with accommodations did not constitute a fixed place PE or an agency PE.
The Tribunal found that the approval obtained from the PCIT for reopening the assessment was not valid, as it merely stated "As per Annexure" without proper application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were initiated on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking Section 13(2)(e) as the conditions for substantial interest were not met. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer combined provisions of Section 13(2)(e) and 2(22)(e) and relied on assumptions and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits would amount to double addition as the cash sales, which were the source of these deposits, were already accepted by the AO in the return of income. The assessee had sufficiently proved the source of cash deposits from their books of account, which were not rejected by the AO. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided detailed findings on the issue. The Revenue failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under section 68 by submitting various documents proving the genuineness of the source and source of sources of the loans. The AO failed to prove any direct nexus linking the assessee with accommodation entries. Therefore, the deletion of additions related to loans, interest expenses, and commission was upheld.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee declared commission income of Rs. 4,05,000/- but failed to substantiate its nature. The assessment was selected for scrutiny to verify transaction genuineness and income declaration. The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition based on information available with the department and the statement of Sh. Sanjay Garg, but the assessee could not substantiate her declared income. The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded from Sh. Sanjay Garg without proper investigation and corroborative evidence. The AO failed to establish how the assessee was involved in imports or business income. The Tribunal found no evidence that the assessee imported goods or was a beneficiary of undervalued imports. It was concluded that the assessee might have been a facilitator for Sh. Manoj Gupta, acting as a pass-through beneficiary earning commission without engaging in any activity, which explains her inability to substantiate the income. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence against the assessee and stated that changing statements regarding commission income cannot be used against her. Since the assessee declared the commission income, no other income could be added. The addition was deleted because the assessee had no independent business income, and there was no evidence of her carrying on any business. Mere suspicion without corroborating evidence is insufficient for an addition based solely on a third-party statement. The Tribunal did not decide on the deduction under Section 80TTA.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of each case. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding unexplained sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 4,75,94,884/-, the Tribunal noted that only three parties responded to the notice u/s 133(6) and the genuineness could not be ascertained. However, for imports from KRY Global, verified by Customs, the CIT(A) deletion was upheld. For other purchases, the CIT(A)'s restriction of addition to 10% GP was upheld. Limit closing charges were held to be legitimate business expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the assessee actually collected or possessed the alleged sum. The Tribunal noted the lack of any action by the companies or investors against the assessee for misappropriation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were correctly quashed by the CIT(A) as they fell outside the 10-year block period, applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision for these two years and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. For the remaining assessment years, the Tribunal heard the rival submissions and perused the materials. The Id. CIT DR led the arguments for the Revenue. However, the judgment states that the Revenue's appeals were dismissed without detailing the specific findings on the issues raised in points 5(a) to 5(h) for the remaining assessment years. The operative direction was that the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The primary reason for this decision was that the AO had made additions based on information from the Investigation Wing, treating the sale of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. shares as a bogus penny stock transaction. The assessee claimed to have filed all necessary evidence to prove the LTCG as genuine. Crucially, the assessee argued that no opportunity was provided to cross-examine the persons whose statements formed the basis for alleging the transaction as sham. The Tribunal, in the larger interest of justice, directed the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine the Revenue's witnesses, specifically those whose statements were relied upon to deem the transaction bogus. All grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) & 271(1)(C) was implicitly addressed by the remand, as the primary additions are subject to further verification.
The Tribunal held that the Hazir Johri software contained transactions of various unrelated parties and there was no concrete material to implicate the assessee. Relying on previous judgments in similar cases, the Tribunal concluded that additions based on such seized data without corroborative evidence and proper opportunity for cross-examination were not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Tribunal reasoned that the ten-year block period for Section 153C assessments is calculated from the date of the search, which, in this case, is the date of recording satisfaction by the assessee's AO (September 29, 2021). Applying the ratio of the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd, AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 fall outside this ten-year period. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue for these two assessment years were dismissed. For the remaining assessment years, the Tribunal stated that the issues were identical and the decision would apply mutatis mutandis, with variances in figures. The Tribunal heard the rival submissions and perused the materials, but the detailed findings on the common issues for the remaining assessment years are not fully recorded in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessments for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, finding them to be outside the permissible block period. For the remaining assessment years, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the lack of incriminating material directly linking the assessee to the alleged undisclosed income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear at the time of hearing, and no arguments were made in support of the grounds raised. The Revenue's representative submitted that while the CIT(A) had discussed the reopening grounds, the merit ground (ground no. 9) appeared to be disposed of without a speaking order, and the assessment was ex-parte. The Tribunal examined the record and found that the CIT(A) had addressed all grounds, including the jurisdictional ones and the merit ground. However, upon further perusal of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessment order, the Tribunal observed that the dismissal of ground no. 9 on merit was not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Act and was not a speaking order. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte regarding the addition. Therefore, for the limited purpose of deciding the issue of the addition of Rs. 44,05,518/-, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for deciding afresh, with a direction to the assessee to file details/documents within 60 days. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the seized documents and statements to conclude that the property was purchased for Rs. 76 crores. The initial draft agreement for Rs. 99 crores, including refurbishment costs, was superseded by a later board resolution and sale deed for Rs. 76 crores without refurbishment.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on the non-response of some suppliers to notices and a doubt about vehicle capacity without sufficient inquiry. The assessee had provided purchase bills, bank statements, and ledger books, discharging their initial burden.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash assessments for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 as they fell outside the prescribed block period. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's case lacked direct evidence implicating the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable as the assessee did not hold the requisite shareholding in the lending entities and the entities lacked accumulated profits. The Tribunal also found the assessee eligible for the Section 54 deduction.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were void ab initio as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal noted that TOLA relaxation did not apply to the assessment year in question, and the notice was issued under the old law after the new law had come into effect.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 27.7.2022 was time-barred, as the extended due date for its issuance had expired on 18.6.2022, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessments for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, finding them to be outside the permissible block period. For the remaining assessment years, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish that incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the searches, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable as the assessee did not hold the requisite shareholding in the lending entities and the entities lacked accumulated profits. The Tribunal also found the assessee eligible for the Section 54 deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had drawn summary conclusions without properly analyzing the facts of the case, especially in light of the controversy regarding multiple PAN numbers issued to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an amount of Rs. 74,62,200/- pertaining to the assessee, which included details of sale of jewellery and rental income, was explained, and therefore the addition on this count could not be sustained. However, the amount of Rs. 1,00,01,800/- belonging to the husband, which remained unexplained before all authorities, was justified for confirmation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested admission of additional evidence, and the CIT(A)'s decision was based on consequent remand proceedings. However, the impugned order of the CIT(A) did not indicate any remand report. The Tribunal found that the observations of the AO and their application to the facts were not duly discussed, and the conclusions drawn by the CIT(A) regarding the cash credit of Rs. 20,85,000/- were not based on demonstrative evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo in accordance with law, after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with statutory notices from the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued before obtaining the necessary approval from the PCIT, making the notice invalid. Furthermore, the sanction granted by the PCIT was deemed mechanical and without application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were held to be void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were illegal as there was no independent application of mind by the AO to the information received from the Investigation Wing. Furthermore, reopening beyond four years without demonstrating failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was also deemed invalid.